9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 261X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant was accepted by the hon'ble High Court. Similarly, in the case of CIT (TDS) v. Executive Engineer [2009 (8) TMI 643 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT] and CIT v. Superintending Engineer, PWD [2002 (5) TMI 13 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] in the cases involving identical facts, held to the similar effect. The hon'ble apex court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1969 (8) TMI 31 - SUPREME COURT] observed that an order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of a quasi-criminal proceeding and penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest, or acted in conscious disregard o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with section 200(3) of the Act merely on the ground that section 273B of the Act which speaks of 'reasonable cause' for any defaults, does not include clause (k) of sub-section (2) of section 272A. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) should have noticed that there is no 'total failure' on the part of the company- appellant to deliver the TDS forms in Form No. 24Q but there is delay in filing them. 4. The delay was due to the fact that the managing director, who was also in charge of the financial matters had resigned on September 24, 2012, and also the accountant of the company had left without notice. 5. Section 273B is a substantial clause and the words 'reasonable cause' should apply to a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nalty under clause (k) of sub-section (2) of section 272A of the Act for the delay in submission of the quarterly returns in Form 24Q and 26Q. In response to the said show-cause notice, it was submitted that the delay in submission of the prescribed quarterly returns is caused on account of the ignorance of law on the part of new accountant. The TDS Officer had brushed aside the said explanation of the appellant and proceeded to levy penalty vide order dated April 29, 2013 passed under section 272A of the Act for an amount of ₹ 1,43,108. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was preferred before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who had confirmed the levy of penalty vide the impugned order by holding as under: The phr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on account of change of accountant in the company. There was no prejudice caused either to the Government of India or to the payee since the appellant had deducted the correct amount of TDS and remitted to the Central Government account and where there is a delay the interest under section 201 was voluntarily paid. He further submitted that the issue of levy of penalty is discretionary power of authority and if there is any breach, it is only technical in nature which does not warrant levy of penalty, in this connection he relied on the decision of the hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CWT v. S. Jindal [1992] 194 ITR 539 (Karn) in support of the proposition that mere use of the word shall in the provisions of section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act cannot be levied. In the present case, change of accountant who is ignorant of the statutory provisions of TDS can be said to be a reasonable cause so as not to warrant levy of penalty. In identical facts of the case, the hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Accounts Officer, Telecom [2006] 281 ITR 302 (All) held that the delay in filing the prescribed returns are only technical nature and since there is no loss to the Revenue, the default is of only technical nature and the delay due to the ignorance of the appellant was accepted by the hon'ble High Court. Similarly, the hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT (TDS) v. Executive Engineer [2010] 320 ITR 494 (P H) and the hon'ble Rajasthan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
